Is Thinking Essential for Existence?

[Microburst]

Can you prove you don’t exist? :zzz:

 

[Enos]

Same rules apply.

 

[Rybo]

You think about something

i think therefore i am
i can't prove your exist, but i am pretty sure i exist

You think about somthing that can only be based on your experience of somethings.

Contrary to popluar "oh i wasnt thinging abut anything" the subconscious and unconsious are always actively processing experience, or recombobulation/aggregate of past experiences, to some degree even if minimally so.

I"dream ergo I am unconsciously processing experience of one sort or another.

Without things there can be no experiential uncosnsicous or conscious conciousness.


Rybo

 

[saltydog]

Doubting Tom

I think Decartes said:

"I can doubt everything except doubting. Doubting is something. Therefore I exist."

Works for me.
SD

 

[metrictensor]

what do you mean by exist?

 

[saltydog]

You know, just the fact it took me so long to figure out how to write it in LaTex is proof enough I exist:

$$\sim \varnothing$$

 

[Math Is Hard]

You know, just the fact it took me so long to figure out how to write it in LaTex is proof enough I exist:

$$\sim \varnothing$$

I Tex, therefore I am?

 

[saltydog]

I Tex, therefore I am?

Well, let's see, surely there must be . . . Oh yea, there it is . . .

$$Existence \notin \varnothing$$

SD

 

[chound]

I'm here all right! Plz don't confuse me. I'm touching the keys of my keyboard and people can see me. So I exist.

 

[metrictensor]

I'm here all right! Plz don't confuse me. I'm touching the keys of my keyboard and people can see me. So I exist.

Although I haven't read all posts from what I have seen this is the best answer. Still the question still is not clearly defined. We need a definition of what is meant by 'exist'. This post is correct given my definition.

My definition is that if something exists it is an object of a valid cognition. In line with this definition the fact that we can question our existence is evidence that we exist. As a side note "I think therefore I am" is a perfect reason to establish that we exist as I see it.

 

[Enos]

I think therefore i was. That is the only certainty you can have because thinking takes time, and you can never be certian that you exist unless you think faster than light.

 

[eNathan]

I personally believe that we exist, but as far as proof...YES, I think I have some. We cannt prove that other's around us exist (Meaning that if you are reading this, maybe I don't exist to you, I am just a figure of your imagination, like in a dream), but you can prove that YOU, as a BEING, do exist, because if you did not exist...Nothing would exist from your point of view. Think if it this way, while you are in a dream, you are convinced that everything around you is real, you treat the situation as real life, but the beings around you do not exist, but you do, because if you didnt exist, you could not be observing anything.

Perhaps I did not explaine what I mean clear enough, but I think what I said is valid.

$/frac Sub Main(Void); { If(PF)==1 { PF.Start; Else PF.Kill; } }$

 

[cen2y]

I personally believe that we exist, but as far as proof...YES, I think I have some. We cannt prove that other's around us exist (Meaning that if you are reading this, maybe I don't exist to you, I am just a figure of your imagination, like in a dream), but you can prove that YOU, as a BEING, do exist, because if you did not exist...Nothing would exist from your point of view. Think if it this way, while you are in a dream, you are convinced that everything around you is real, you treat the situation as real life, but the beings around you do not exist, but you do, because if you didnt exist, you could not be observing anything.

Perhaps I did not explaine what I mean clear enough, but I think what I said is valid.

Note though that it takes time, not only to experience but even to understand what it means to be existing. Furthermore, how can we know that our logical system is correct, what basis for knowledge does this deduction give us?
I believe we are not to base these things on strict implication but rather on probability. I can surely agree that I believe myself to hold a high probability of existence as I am writting this, though, pre-metalogicly, if this sentance would be correct, I'd exist.
Given this, one may very well go on to try and figure out whether other beings exists or not. Do you percept things? You can hold quite a high probabiliity for this as well. Then, wherein lies the difference between things which you percept who are others and things you percept who aren't others?

 

[metrictensor]

Furthermore, how can we know that our logical system is correct, what basis for knowledge does this deduction give us?

I don't know how to address this comment unless you define "logical system".

I am not sure who is reading my posts but no one has given a definition of an existent. Until we define our terminology we can't have an intelligent discussion. By presenting a definition the problem is resolved. The problem is not whether something exists or not but determining what is meant by existence.

Philosophy is very simple it is our thinking that is complicated. A quote by Wittgenstein capture this sentiment perfectly.

Why is philosophy so complicated? It ought to be entirely simple. Philosophy unties the knots in our thinking that we have, in a senseless way, put there. To do this it must make movements that are just as complicated as these knots. Although the result of philosophy is simple, its method cannot be if it is to succeed. The complexity of philosophy is not a complexity of its subject matter, but of our knotted understanding.

 

[penguinraider]

do I exist? I'm here aren't I?

 

[penguinraider]

heres a problem. Can you prove we're not a figment of some-one elses imagination, who is then a figment of some-one elses imagination, et infinatum?

 

[metrictensor]

heres a problem. Can you prove we're not a figment of some-one elses imagination, who is then a figment of some-one elses imagination, et infinatum?

If you think you are the figment of another's imagination try running into a closed door.

 

[arildno]

And what if the really existing person decides that the particular figment in his mind (deluding itself of having separate existence) should experience the sensation of pain the real person would experience when running into a closed door?..

 

[metrictensor]

And what if the really existing person decides that the particular figment in his mind (deluding itself of having separate existence) should experience the sensation of pain the real person would experience when running into a closed door?..

This is all a bunch of speculative bull ****. I am asking you sitting there typing on the comptuer to run into a door. You can speculate all you want if you are a figment of someones imagination or not but you know that it hurts when you run into a door.

 

[arildno]

It seems you didn't notice the ,

 

[RoboSapien]

I don't have to prove I exist and hence I have proved that I do.

 

[metrictensor]

It seems you didn't notice the ,

I understand words and ideas not stupid faces.

 

[arildno]

Do you identify with the main characters in "Grumpy old men"?

 

[metrictensor]

Your particpation in the world (i.e. interacting with people, posting on the internet) is evidence that you exist. We are certain that this is going on. Any discussion of a God or some level of reality behind the scenes is pure speculation. The question of existence only arises when we consider humans to be independently existing objects that encounter other independently existing object. This is mistaken. We are not isolated thinking individuals in the sense that we exist independently of our environment and the beings who inhabit it. In other words, there is no person without a world to interact in. The whole premise of this question hinges on the incorrect assumption that there is an isolated individual who encounters things, not an individual who exists in relation to its interactions with others and its environment. Basically, your analysis has become too scientific in the sense that you have attempted to isolate the object of investigation by assuming it can be isolated.

 

[metrictensor]

Do you identify with the main characters in "Grumpy old men"?

I identify with serious thinkers.

 

[Picklehead]

Not to you. My own existence is self-evident . . . to me. I may be a dream character in someone elses head, but I have enough autonomy to be 'tricked' into thinking I exist, so therefore, in that sense, I exist. You can't trick nothing, can you?

 

[metrictensor]

Not to you. My own existence is self-evident . . . to me. I may be a dream character in someone elses head, but I have enough autonomy to be 'tricked' into thinking I exist, so therefore, in that sense, I exist. You can't trick nothing, can you?

You people with your dream-reality are going way too far. There is no "proof" necessary to establish existence. This would only be the case if there were an independent self that was thrown into the world and encountered other objects that exist equally independently of anything else.

 

[penguinraider]

Ok then, prove we're not a figment of our own imagination...

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

If anyone wants to prove that he/she/it exist, she/he/it must...

First prove that we can prove

second prove that we can exist

third prove that he personally exists

 

[Smurf]

To prove anything, must one not exist beforehand?